Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for discussion:  soc.history
Message-ID: <2841775965@lewis.crd.ge.com>
Date: 19 Jan 90 22:12:45 GMT
References: <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com> <630@enea.se> <382@dbase.A-T.COM> <11478@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Lines: 36

In article <11478@venera.isi.edu>, Craig E. Ward writes: 
*In article <382@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes:
*>...
*  For the time being,
*let's shoot for an unmoderated group.  If it gets out of hand, we can always
*add it.

this is what i plan to call for votes on; an unmoderated group.
however, i consider conversion to moderation to be a potentially
risky business.

*> [...]
*>Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of:

*>     misc.history.misc
*>     soc.history.misc

*I like the "soc" better but I'll admit that it's mostly because it's shorter
*(i.e. I don't want a big fight over this either).

as i have posted elsewhere, i'm running an informal email poll
on misc. vs. soc.; whichever wins will be the one i call for a vote
on.  i'll call for a vote a week from monday (modulo the expected
delays in the call for votes reaching greg woods to be posted.)

*I don't think the ".misc" is necessary.  A soc.history group can be a general
*catch-all group just as easily.

i also don't see the need for .misc; soc.history or misc.history can
get the job done perfectly well.

richard
-- 
richard welty    518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty            welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
    ``air holes!?  nobody said anything to me about air holes''